Strategy and set up

AstonMartin

Using last years premier league results only it would be a good exercise to analyse team formation and strategies to better predict results.

For example Stoke, Fulham and Birmingham all had very similar styles and set ups last year and the result was that all the games between these teams finished with 2 or less goals if I recall correctly.

what were the characteristics of these teams that resulted in this cluster of results?

A good defensive midfielder, poor attacking options, one CB who never went forward, experienced keeper, long ball specialists with only one forward to beat 3 or 4 defenders?

A question for the enthuasists... What are the characteristics of these three teams that seemed to set them apart from the strategies employed by the other PL teams?

Kiwi_knock

As a Birmingham fan I can admit that we were by far the most negative team last season. Our tactics were based on defence and not conceding. There was hardly any attacking threat in the team, the majority of goals came from set pieces. There was an over reliance on long ball, and making Jerome chase the ball out wide.

We played a very flat rigid 4-5-1 without any attacking midfielders. Players were played out of position like Fahey on the left wing. McLeish has no idea how to handle attack minded players, look at his failures with Hleb, Bentley, Beausejour and Phillips among others.

Birmingham's lack of goals is due to the negative approach we took to the game.

AstonMartin

Thats a good write up kiwi.

so another theory is no playmaker to get the ball forward and only 1 recognised forward?

tolosenc

A team that's struggling might want to try a 4-4-3 approach. Just to see how long they could get away with it for.

Kammy: "Jeff, I've never seen anything like it. Town are passing the ball around like they've got an extra player. City don't know what's hit them!"

amacachi

tolosenc wrote: »

A team that's struggling might want to try a 4-4-3 approach. Just to see how long they could get away with it for.

Kammy: "Jeff, I've never seen anything like it. Town are passing the ball around like they've got an extra player. City don't know what's hit them!"

I don't see how going without a goalkeeper is a good idea for a team that's struggling.

AstonMartin

Probably not a good idea to talk about a hypothetical 11 outfield players to sum up the 3 teams in the op.

DoctorGonzo08

I think the league you play in plays a big input into the type of formation you play. For example, the fairly recent 4-5-1 att, penned by the Spanish teams suit the Spanish teams because the way the players are taught to play is to hold possession, tippy tap passes and triangles. Even in the poor teams in Spain you can see this. They don't create alot of chances but it is an effective way to wear a team down and therefore, arguable, when chances come you have a better chance of converting it.

Teams in the premiership, notably Utd and City have dabled in this formation last year to no real avail, as it obvious within the BPL that a 4-4-2 formation works best for the players. When playing 4-5-1, players find it more difficult to hold their positions, strikers get frustrated and drop deep looking for the ball resulting in nobody up front to convert any chances. It does strengthen up the def output but at the expense of att.

This is not to say a switch can't happen, but atm I think a good English side plays best with 4-4-2, while on the continent 4-5-1 works better.

AstonMartin

Thanks Doc, I will have a look for that in the spanish games tonight and at the weekend.

DoctorGonzo08

As a note to your original post, if you take Birmingham, Stoke and Blackburn for example. They all played 4-4-2 with a back 4 consisting mainly of centre halves with no att full backs. This was set up so they defend well against set pieces and also leaves them with alot more ariel threat for their own attacking set pieces.